header image
The world according to David Graham

Topics

acva bili chpc columns committee conferences elections environment essays ethi faae foreign foss guelph hansard highways history indu internet leadership legal military money musings newsletter oggo pacp parlchmbr parlcmte politics presentations proc qp radio reform regs rnnr satire secu smem statements tran transit tributes tv unity

Recent entries

  1. Trump will win in 2020 (and keep an eye on 2024)
  2. January 17th, 2020
  3. January 16th, 2020
  4. January 15th, 2020
  5. January 14th, 2020
  6. January 13th, 2020
  7. January 12th, 2020
  8. January 11th, 2020
  9. January 10th, 2020
  10. January 9th, 2020
  11. January 8th, 2020
  12. January 7th, 2020
  13. January 6th, 2020
  14. January 5th, 2020
  15. January 4th, 2020
  16. January 3rd, 2020
  17. January 2nd, 2020
  18. January 1st, 2020
  19. December 31st, 2019
  20. December 30th, 2019
  21. December 29th, 2019
  22. December 28th, 2019
  23. December 27th, 2019
  24. December 26th, 2019
  25. December 24th, 2019
  26. December 6th, 2019
  27. A podcast with Michael Geist on technology and politics
  28. Next steps
  29. On what electoral reform reforms
  30. 2019 Fall campaign newsletter / infolettre campagne d'automne 2019
  31. older entries...

2017-06-08 17:21 House intervention / intervention en chambre

Agreements and contracts, Disarmament, Nuclear weapons, Opposition motions,

Armes nucléaires, Désarmement, Ententes et contrats

Mr. Speaker, as is often the case, I find myself stuck between the fissile motion of the NDP and the facile position of the Conservatives. The last time the Conservatives ran a fighter procurement program, we largely lost our aviation industry, which took a long time to recover and we ended up with the Bomarc missile, which made us a temporary and not very effective nuclear power. I find it very consistent with the position we are hearing today, that nuclear weapons are essential for world peace, which is a position I do not necessarily agree with.

I am wondering what my colleague in the NDP thinks of that position and if he thinks the obvious logical conclusion we are hearing from the Conservatives is that, if every country had nuclear weapons, there would be world peace.

Monsieur le Président, comme c'est souvent le cas, je me retrouve entre la motion fissile du NPD et la position facile des conservateurs. La dernière fois que les conservateurs ont lancé un programme d’acquisition d’avions de chasse, nous avons perdu une grande partie de notre industrie de l’aviation. Il nous a fallu bien de temps pour nous en remettre, et nous nous sommes retrouvés avec le missile Bomarc, grâce auquel nous avons temporairement joui d’une puissance nucléaire, quoique pas très efficace. Je trouve que cela illustre bien ce que nous entendons aujourd’hui, soit que les armes nucléaires sont essentielles pour maintenir la paix dans le monde. Je ne suis pas tout à fait d’accord avec cette façon de voir.

Je me demande ce que mon collègue du NPD pense de cette position. Croit-il que la conclusion logique et évidente de ce que nous disent les conservateurs est que si tous les pays avaient des armes nucléaires, la paix régnerait dans le monde entier?

Watch | HansardEcoutez | Hansard

Posted at 15:26 on June 08, 2017

This entry has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.

2017-06-08 16:36 House intervention / intervention en chambre | hansard parlchmbr tv |

2017-06-09 12:25 House intervention / intervention en chambre

(RSS) Website generating code and content © 2001-2020 David Graham <david@davidgraham.ca>, unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved. Comments are © their respective authors.